Re: [PATCH for-next 3/6] xen/sched: Fix build when NR_CPUS == 1

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 26.02.2021 04:08, Connor Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 04:50:02PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 25.02.2021 16:24, Connor Davis wrote:
>>> Return from cpu_schedule_up when either cpu is 0 or
>>> NR_CPUS == 1. This fixes the following:
>>>
>>> core.c: In function 'cpu_schedule_up':
>>> core.c:2769:19: error: array subscript 1 is above array bounds
>>> of 'struct vcpu *[1]' [-Werror=array-bounds]
>>>  2769 |     if ( idle_vcpu[cpu] == NULL )
>>>       |
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Connor Davis <connojdavis@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  xen/common/sched/core.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xen/common/sched/core.c b/xen/common/sched/core.c
>>> index 9745a77eee..f5ec65bf9b 100644
>>> --- a/xen/common/sched/core.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/sched/core.c
>>> @@ -2763,7 +2763,7 @@ static int cpu_schedule_up(unsigned int cpu)
>>>      cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &sched_res_mask);
>>>  
>>>      /* Boot CPU is dealt with later in scheduler_init(). */
>>> -    if ( cpu == 0 )
>>> +    if ( cpu == 0 || NR_CPUS == 1 )
>>>          return 0;
>>>  
>>>      if ( idle_vcpu[cpu] == NULL )
>>
>> I'm not convinced a compiler warning is due here, and in turn
>> I'm not sure we want/need to work around this the way you do.
> 
> It seems like a reasonable warning to me, but of course I'm open
> to dealing with it in a different way.
> 
>> First question is whether that's just a specific compiler
>> version that's flawed. If it's not just a special case (e.g.
> 
> The docker container uses gcc 10.2.0 from
> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-gnu-toolchain

Ah yes, at -O2 I can observe the warning on e.g.

extern int array[N];

int test(unsigned i) {
        if(i == N - 1)
                return 0;
        return array[i];
}

when N=1. No warning appears when N=2 or higher, yet if it is
sensible to emit for N=1 then it would imo be similarly
sensible to emit in other cases. The only difference is that
when N=1, there's no i for which the array access would ever
be valid, while e.g. for N=2 there's exactly one such i.

I've tried an x86 build with NR_CPUS=1, and this hits the case
you found and a 2nd one, where behavior is even more puzzling.
For the case you've found I'd like to suggest as alternative

@@ -2769,6 +2769,12 @@ static int cpu_schedule_up(unsigned int
     if ( cpu == 0 )
         return 0;
 
+    /*
+     * Guard in particular also against the compiler suspecting out-of-bounds
+     * array accesses below when NR_CPUS=1.
+     */
+    BUG_ON(cpu >= NR_CPUS);
+
     if ( idle_vcpu[cpu] == NULL )
         vcpu_create(idle_vcpu[0]->domain, cpu);
     else

To fix the x86 build in this regard we'd additionally need
something along the lines of

--- unstable.orig/xen/arch/x86/genapic/x2apic.c
+++ unstable/xen/arch/x86/genapic/x2apic.c
@@ -54,7 +54,17 @@ static void init_apic_ldr_x2apic_cluster
     per_cpu(cluster_cpus, this_cpu) = cluster_cpus_spare;
     for_each_online_cpu ( cpu )
     {
-        if (this_cpu == cpu || x2apic_cluster(this_cpu) != x2apic_cluster(cpu))
+        if ( this_cpu == cpu )
+            continue;
+        /*
+         * Guard in particular against the compiler suspecting out-of-bounds
+         * array accesses below when NR_CPUS=1 (oddly enough with gcc 10 it
+         * is the 1st of these alone which actually helps, not the 2nd, nor
+         * are both required together there).
+         */
+        BUG_ON(this_cpu >= NR_CPUS);
+        BUG_ON(cpu >= NR_CPUS);
+        if ( x2apic_cluster(this_cpu) != x2apic_cluster(cpu) )
             continue;
         per_cpu(cluster_cpus, this_cpu) = per_cpu(cluster_cpus, cpu);
         break;

but the comment points out how strangely the compiler behaves here.
Even flipping around the two sides of the != doesn't change its
behavior. It is perhaps relevant to note here that there's no
special casing of smp_processor_id() in the NR_CPUS=1 case, so the
compiler can't infer this_cpu == 0.

Once we've settled on how to change common/sched/core.c I guess
I'll then adjust the x86-specific change accordingly and submit as
a separate fix (or I could of course also bundle both changes then).

Jan